I was waiting anxiously in the prep area, hospital scrubs, surgical, mask, CAP and slippers, prepared to witness the birth of our second child. "It is time to go again?" I asked, a little dazed.
The nurse I stared at the unbelievers. "Don't you want to take pictures?" Suddenly I felt embarrassed, as if they were back in fourth grade and dressed in trousers straight-leg when everyone else wore Bell bottoms.
"I don't know where is the camera," I said. Nurse's eyes widened in something like alarm. "I think you were," blurted out nervously, referring to my wife, who was lying on the operating table, anesthetic his way through his spinal cord and nervous system.
I'll be right back, "said the nurse. He returned in minutes and triumphantly said: "you say that is at the bottom of her bag".
I checked out the camera and started fumbling with it. "I don't think the know-how for this job," I confessed. "Can we go now?"
The nurse shook his head and the camera out of my hands began to tremble. I'll take the pictures for you, "he said. It took a few steps back. "Smile," he commanded and snapped away. "You look like a doctor!" he said.
Since that time, was in control. In the operating room, from my perch by the head of my wife, I could see the camera flash from the other side of the curtain and listen to the commentary of the nurse-Photographer: "Nice!" "Oh, that's going to be a good". "Hold her up. There! "
Otherwise I am grateful to the nurse who, despite his duties as self-appointed documentarian, has helped to bring our little girl in the world with care and skill. But I still admire the alleged need for the camera, for all its ubiquitousness, the Chamber of childbirth. The idea that nothing, or a small could be anybody, deserve protection from the digital lens has become an aberration. I assume that I was expected to rush out and load arrival of my daughter on YouTube before she had even his first diaper change at home.
Once again, it is understood that would be demonstrated their intimate photographs-the majority of your children, or movies that you've done them, for other family members and friends (bored). Is called the latter "movies" because it made them at home and showed them at home. Now, more and more parent-photographers have reached the global reach of Sony Pictures, marketing their goods on the domestic market in the world. Spontaneity and randomness of taking pictures of family gave way to display introverts, calculated members of the family, usually children.
A recent study released by AVG, an Internet security company, found that 92 percent of American children have a presence online by the time they are 2. One third of mothers in the United States said that they had posted pictures of their babies online, and 34 percent of American mothers had sent sonograms of their babies in the womb. According to the study of American AVG, mothers are more likely to post pictures of their children online more mothers in any other country.
AVG study is the first appearance of children on the Internet as their "born digital". That seems apt. From that point onwards, these children will have two lives: one presumably lived consciously and deliberately; and the lives of others, digitized, subject to countless unknown pairs of eyes, as well as to countless unknown uses and purposes. And this raises the question of free choice. Unlike adults who post pictures of themselves on social networking sites, these infants and children have their pictures transmitted around the world against their will, in itself, but before they have any desire to speak at all.
Lee Siegel is the author of "Against the machine: how the Web is reshaping culture and Commerce — and why it Matters"
No comments:
Post a Comment